You finally made your choice. I was still choosing under the previous option, but you've already made your choice. It was the right choice, in my opinion.
DoubleLaura, Caring for you. :-) By frequently visiting the site and looking at other people's pictures, you fall INDIVIDUALLY UNCONSCIOUSLY under the corrupting influence of, for example, E. Stepanova.
I see a fundamental difference. I'm not sure the author and I see the same thing in the picture, but I'd really like to hope so. In this picture, I can easily read the SIGNS, while in Stepanov's picture, it's a decorative form. That's a fundamental difference.
I also think there's a significant difference. Although I don't see any signs (I don't know/don't understand them). I have clear associations with something like this:
I see a fundamental difference. I'm not sure the author and I see the same thing in the picture, but I'd really like to hope so. In this picture, I can easily read the SIGNS, while in Stepanov's picture, it's a decorative form. That's a fundamental difference.
Andrew Kud, I agree, and what they have in common is that both feature a so-called flat landscape.
Alexey Krik, Photography as ART, according to MY beliefs, is only possible in two of its forms. I'll repeat the link so I don't have to type anymore. www.photographer.ru/nonstop/blog/?topic=22698
Andrew Kud, do you understand the word "sign" as Pierce understood it?
Alexey Krik, In your understanding, it's an icon, an index, a symbol *** In photography, the term "signs" is more conveniently understood as visual TROPES: metaphors, allusions, allegories, synecdoches, ...
I was still choosing under the previous option, but you've already made your choice.
It was the right choice, in my opinion.
It may not be a masterpiece, but by local standards it's definitely a PHOTOGRAPH.
under the corrupting influence of, for example, E. Stepanova.
The difference isn't that big.
In this picture, I can easily read the SIGNS, while in Stepanov's picture, it's a decorative form. That's a fundamental difference.
Photography as ART, according to MY beliefs, is only possible in two of its forms.
I'll repeat the link so I don't have to type anymore.
www.photographer.ru/nonstop/blog/?topic=22698
In your understanding, it's an icon, an index, a symbol
***
In photography, the term "signs" is more conveniently understood as visual TROPES: metaphors, allusions, allegories, synecdoches, ...